501-C-3 Churchs are not Christian Churchs.

501-C-3 Church s are not Christian Church s. This is a simple fact that is easily proved. They have contracted and agreed to follow mans law to the point

Message 1 of 10
, May 21, 2013

0 Attachment

501-C-3 Church's are not Christian Church's.

This is a simple fact that is easily proved. They have contracted and agreed to follow mans law to the point of refusing to follow the commandments of the Lord, either Christian, Muslim or Jewish laws. Every one of them are hypocrites, I know of no religion that puts mans laws over the Creators laws, regardless of your religions believes. If you have any.

U.S Government has even perverted it own laws the Government was founded on, Separation of Church and STATE and freedom of speech. Is there nothing that can not be destroyed in the City of Washington in the District
of Columbia.This is what the Bible states
on such
actions. If I am wrong please correct me."Whoever therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of G-d: and they that resist, shall receive to
themselves condemnation." Romans 13:2

"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances of the world,
why, as though ye lived in the world, are ye burdened with traditions?"
Colossians 2:20

"Which all perish with the using, and are after the
commandments and doctrines of men." Colossians 2:22

"And putting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which
was contrary to us, he even took it out of the way, and fastened it upon the
cross, . . ." Colossians 2: 14.

501c(3) organizations are even morelimited than the 501c(4) organizations are. I should know, I helped with the accounting for one for a few years.

By the way - actually, they were applying for both.

From the TIGTA report: "The criteria in the BOLO listing were Tea Party organizations applying for I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) or I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) status."

But, you're right, I didn't cite the text for the 501(c)(3) statute.
I'll remedy the
situation:

(3)Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any
candidate for public office.

Lord bless. Jerry James Stanon

BOB GREGORY

*I m opposed to 501c3 status for churches, but to say U.S Government has even perverted it own laws the Government was founded on, Separation of Church and

Message 2 of 10
, May 22, 2013

0 Attachment

*I'm opposed to 501c3 status for churches, but to say "U.S Government has
even perverted it own laws the Government was founded on, Separation of
Church and STATE and freedom of speech" is not quite true.

You are referring, in the case of "freedom of speech" to the First
Amendment. The government was not "founded" on it because the government
was already founded and in existence under the Canstitution. The
Constitution was adopted in September 1787 and ratified in June 1788. The
First ten amendments were adopted by Congress in September 1789 and
ratified in December 1791.

Rules under 501c3 do have the effect of limiting freedom of speech. By the
way, did you know that Lyndon Johnson was behind the 501c3 law in 1954?
See THIS <http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm>.

As for "separation of church and state," there is no provision in the
constitution for that. It is a construction of the imagination. The First
Amendment provides that "CONGRESS shall make no law ESTABLISHING a religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The intent is to prevent having
the federal government endorse or adopt any one particular religion. At
the time of the ratification of that amendment there were, in fact, states
which had state religions. Congress is enjoined from putting its nose into
the matter of religion in those ways specified. If a complete separation
of religions of any type from all government connection was intended, there
would not be chaplains in both houses of Congress since the 1700's..

Propaganda from some specific sources with specific goals has been mounted
to attack religion in the fake name of the First Amendment.

I am not a particularly religious person, but I can read. I know what the
amendment says and does not say, and I know what various founding fathers
said and wrote. People with the agenda of demonizing religion quote a
letter from Jefferson to a Baptist church group, using it to imply what he
did not mean.

========================*

CarlS

It s true. In order to organize under USC 26, Subtitle A, section 501(c)(3), you must be representing a corporation, which is a creation of the state in which

Message 3 of 10
, May 23, 2013

0 Attachment

It's true. In order to organize under USC 26, Subtitle A, section 501(c)(3), you must be representing a corporation, which is a creation of the state in which it is domiciled. As the creator, the state has the final authority over its creation. That's just common sense. So when we ask the state to create a corporation on our behalf, we willingly submit to all of the laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations governing such corporations. Then, when we beg the IRS for tax-exempt status, we saddle ourselves with even more restrictive and laborious requirements. So we have no right to complain when we find ourselves in a straight jacket, as it were. After all, we asked for it!

A little-known provision for churches is in Section 508, "Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations":

(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches

It is also true that the idea of separation of church and state does not exist in our constitution, but is a machination of the judicial branch to serve globalist interests. When the founders used the word "religion," what they meant, based on context and other historical data, is "denomination" or "sect." It is unmistakeably clear that the founders espoused a Biblical world view, and the underlying moral foundation, resulting in the freedoms that we enjoy, are uniquely grounded in Judeo-Chr-stian concepts. It is also abundantly clear and well established that the sole source of the rights we enjoy is our Creator, and none other. Therefore, recognition of a Creator is inextricably linked to our rights and freedoms. The founders recognized our Creator as being the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, even though the founders themselves were not necessarily Jews or of the Jewish faith. One of the founders - George Washington, if memory serves me correctly - even stated that it's impossible to govern such a nation as ours without that recognition, and he is correct. If we eliminate G-d from our political arena, then we eliminate our unalienable rights and our freedoms. We are left with only the whims of the politicians, which is subject to the winds of the political climate. A frightening thought indeed, and we're seeing the results of it.

Max Price

It s sad to see how far this country has fallen. The courts are corrupted from the bottom clear to the top. Some of these these courts seem to be completely

Message 4 of 10
, May 23, 2013

0 Attachment

It's sad to see how far this country has fallen. The courts are
corrupted from the bottom clear to the top. Some of these these courts
seem to be completely lawless.

The links below show footage from August 2012 when Heather Lewis, a law school student went to
court to defend herself agents resisting arrest charges. A few months early she
had been walking home by herself at night, when she was attacked from behind by Police
Officer Webb on a dark street. The assault left her with permanent nerve
damage. A second beating was latter captured by security cameras when she arrived at the county jail.

At trial the judge immediately closed the door, forced out the
public, her friends, family members and her defense witnesses. The constitution
clearly protects the right to public trial, but the criminals in office at the
City of Duncan Oklahoma
could care less. There was no record made by the court of the trial. A true
Star Chamber -secret court if I ever saw one.

In
the first video I try to go back in to the court room, but I'm stopped
by Officer Jefferson. About 25 seconds in to the video I ask him "Is
this a public trial?" he responds "No, this is not a public trial."

Judeans were not those who today call themselves Jews . Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 speak to this. The so called Jews today are the descendants of Esau and Cain.

Message 5 of 10
, May 23, 2013

0 Attachment

Judeans were not those who today call themselves "Jews". Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 speak to this. The so called Jews today are the descendants of Esau and Cain. They adhere to the Babylonian Talmud which is the written form of their oral tradition. They adhere to the same systems as the pharisees. They HATE Christ and what he stood for. They mass murdered Christians in Russia under the Jewish bolsheviks. They also go around promoting the notion of "Judeo-Christianity". And in anonymous forums they pretend to be Christians and any thing other than themselves; however, their behavior usually outs them.

It would behoove you to familiarize yourself with the Babylonian Talmud which can be found online. There is a slew of information regarding the jewish domination the bolshevik revolution and all of the government agencies throughout the USSR.

I agree
with your other observations though. It is abundantly clear that a major point of attack by Judeo-Masonry is religion. The masses who fail to have moral and civilized attitudes instilled in them tend to behave like animals who seek out immediate gratification and who do not think about the future. These masses are controlled then via media programming which reinforces and encourages immediate feel good attitudes.

Prior to the 1960's media and drug blitz on the American culture you would be hard pressed to find such individuals and religion played a much larger role for the masses. We are indeed in an unconventional war which is being waged for the ultimate destruction of a belief in our creator.

Jane

Story about a case in North Idaho that goes along with the Secret Court Trial.

Message 6 of 10
, May 24, 2013

0 Attachment

Story about a case in North Idaho that goes along with the Secret Court
Trial.

It sounds like you have a conspiracy going on. It may be difficult to prove, but I don t know precisely every thing that has happened. In my research on 42 USC

Message 8 of 10
, May 24, 2013

0 Attachment

It sounds like you have a conspiracy going on. It may be difficult to prove, but I don't know precisely every thing that has happened. In my research on 42 USC 1983 causes of action I have come across a number of useful reading materials. I will cite some for you. The primary thing you should concern yourself with at the beginning is listing the facts related to every thing that has happened. You can then determine the applicable statute of limitations for all potential causes of action. Then you can work around that and file as needed.

Resources:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21/subchapter-I(familiarize yourself with the material. 1983, 1985, and 1986 may apply to your situation)

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/sect1983.pdf/$file/sect1983.pdf(This has been extraordinarily useful in determining the rules
and guidelines for what should or should not work in a 1983 lawsuit. I will be filing one next week. I have not done this before but I have spent months studying this subject matter and this pdf has been extremely useful. I suggest printing it out, putting it in a 3 ring binder, high light the chapters that will be useful, then high light subsections that specifically address the scenario's in your case.)

Be sure to set up some organizational charts to make this whole process easier to conceptualize. I don't know how many players are involved, but in my own case I'm looking at ~19 people (3 judges I may not be able to touch due to absolute immunity, 1 other judge I know I can get) and 3 municipalities (police department, city, and county). It gets overwhelming so make it a point to set up spreadsheets, flowcharts, etc. which you can rely on when you write up your facts and causes of action. Do not make frivolous charges as it creates more work
for you and creates a moral boost for the other side when they get it dismissed. Make sure you can point to Federal rights violations and State Constitution & Statute violations.

Again, be sure to figure out those statutes of limitations for each cause or you could miss critical time windows.

And be sure to do what you can to rest and relax. I can't describe how high strung I've been for the last 2 years since my own situation started. Your health will suffer if you don't take breaks and get good sleep.

Best wishes.

jai mann

I would also look into the statute of limitations for filing a claim against government agencies at the state level. If you are within the time frame for doing

Message 9 of 10
, May 25, 2013

0 Attachment

I would also look into the statute of limitations for filing a claim against government agencies at the state level. If you are within the time frame for doing so, I would consider doing it, and then when the agency undoubtedly rejects the claim, you may likely extend the statute of limitations for filing against them in court at the state level. That's how things work in California. You'll have to check your government statutory code. If you can't find it, tell me, I can spare a few minutes to locate it.

Now in my case, I missed one of the final filing dates for one of the agencies that I'm going after. I had already filed a claim and it was rejected. I had 6 months to file in state court, but I only planned on filing in federal court because the state courts are involved in a RICO type of patterns with the one sheriff's agency. From what I have read
you can have BOTH a 1983 claim against said agencies, AND the state level jurisdiction under their government tort claims; however, rather than having the same agencies your litigating against rule upon their own situation, you can invoke federal powers to hear state matters in conjunction with the federal claims (Here's a copy of the jurisdiction invocation from my own federal claim I'm working on: "

Plaintiff further
invokes supplemental jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 USC
§1367(a) to hear and decide claims arising under State law.")

This allows you to attack their actions under state law but through the federal court, which should help to get around the possibility of state courts protecting themselves, or other agencies like the police, when they are intimately tied together in criminal actions.

I hate that I missed the boat to use the 28 USC 1367(a) against the one agency I'm litigating against, but I still have the 42 USC1983 to use against them, and the other agency I'm litigating against will get hit with actions under both codes.

So this gets back to
the statute of limitations...figure out when your causes of action first occurred and nail down the statute of limitations for actions under 28 USC 1367(a) AND
42 USC1983. Nail them with every thing you can. That's the best way to punish these people for violating their oath of office and for engaging in criminal conduct.

John Johnson

Just a few thoughts about your posts. Judges do not have absolute immunity. If fraud was involved with your case, it is not closed. Look into the statute of

Message 10 of 10
, May 25, 2013

0 Attachment

Just a few thoughts about your posts. Judges do not have absolute immunity. If fraud was involved with your case, it is not closed. Look into the statute of limitations on fraud. Also be aware of 18 USC 214,242 "color of law" these actions are criminal. If federal actors are involved 28 USC 1331 "bivens" . If state officials are involved you don't need to file in state first you can go directly to federal court.

I would also look into the statute of limitations for filing a claim against government agencies at the state level. If you are within the time frame for doing so, I would consider doing it, and then when the agency undoubtedly rejects the claim, you may likely extend the statute of limitations for filing against them in court at the state level. That's how things work in California. You'll have to check your government statutory code. If you can't find it, tell me, I can spare a few minutes to locate it.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.